Earlier this year, in a column entitled Naming Neocons, I mentioned that The American Conservative publisher Taki Theodoracopulos had been replaced by Jewish businessman Ron Unz and wondered if that might change how the topic of Jews was discussed (or not discussed). After all, while Taki was publisher, featured writer Pat Buchanan had pointed to the heavily Jewish makeup of the neocons.

For instance, in his sizzling cover story Whose War?, he had written that the pre-planned attack on Iraq following 9/11 was instigated by a “neoconservative clique.” “We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars.”

Well, that essay was five years ago, and The American Conservative has mostly moved on to other topics. A recent article, however, prompted me to think about two things related to the above. First, having just last week written about how Jews instinctively fear and feel threatened by nationalistic, particularistic societies and seek to undermine those societies in a variety of ways, including revolutionary action, I couldn’t help but notice that Neil Clark’s June 16 essay in The American Conservative fell into the same category. Second, though the article was about European revolutionary Daniel “Red Dany” Cohn-Bendit, it failed to identify him as Jewish. 

Clark’s essay, “Children of ’68: de Gaulle restored order but the radicals won,” is an almost perfect description of the kind of society smashing Jew I had written about last week. Daniel Cohn-Bendit, born in France to German-Jewish parents who had fled Nazism in 1933, “was the antithesis of everything de Gaulle stood for. De Gaulle, the archetypal proud Frenchman, had been born into a deeply patriotic family. . . . De Gaulle loved France; Cohn-Bendit hated almost everything about it in 1968.”

Change the names of radicals and countries and you have something akin to what I wrote about last week. I showcased how prolific blogger Steve Sailer wrote about the actions of one Franca Eckert Coen, “an Italian Jew in an overwhelmingly Roman Catholic city who lives in an apartment filled with Jewish art [who] was in charge of multicultural policy under the former mayor of Rome, Walter Veltroni.”

Recall also that I quoted Sailer as saying about Coen’s efforts to deconstruct the unity of an ethnic Italian state: “Do you ever get the impression that Kevin MacDonald has secretly bought a controlling interest in the New York Times and is rewriting its articles to make them prove his theories correct?”

Now I have to wonder if MacDonald hasn’t invested heavily in The American Conservative as well.

Again, though Clark does not mention Cohn-Bendit’s real ethnicity in the article, it is obvious to anyone with the courage to read between the lines. Cohn-Bendit, then, is a character directly out of the pages of The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, MacDonald’s culminating volume in his trilogy on Jews.

For instance, Cohn-Bendit’s attempts to alter the sexual mores of society leapt out at me, for MacDonald had written at length on how Freud and his successors in the psychoanalytic movement, including Norman O. Brown, Wilhelm Reich, and Herbert Marcuse, had used attacks on gentile sexual restraint to undermine those societies. “The common thread of these writings is that if society could somehow rid itself of sexual repressions, human relations could be based on love and affection. This is an extremely naive and socially destructive viewpoint, given the current research in the field. Psychoanalytic assertions to the contrary were never any more than speculations in the service of waging a war on gentile culture.”

Now read what Clark writes about Cohn-Bendit’s activities after returning from France to Germany:

Meanwhile, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, the man who had done so much to stir up discontent, moved on to new pastures. Back in Germany, he became involved in radical Green politics and ran a kindergarten in Frankfurt. His stated aim: to “radically transform” German mentalities. As in 1968, it started with sex. (Clark also notes that in his 1976 book, Cohn-Bendit “wrote of children opening his trouser zipper and tickling him and how he ‘caressed’ the children,” an admission which elicited accusations of pedophilia.)

Ah, Cohn-Bendit is ever the sexual transgressor. Back in 1960s’ France, he was a leader “in claims for more sexual freedom, with actions such as participating in the occupation of the girls’ premises, interrupting the speech of a minister who was inaugurating a swimming pool in order to demand free access to the girls’ dormitory. This contributed to attracting to him a lot of student supporters later to be called the March 22nd Movement, a group characterized by a mixture of Marxist, sexual and anarchist semantics.”

Further, Clark points to Cohn-Bendit’s recent efforts in the European Parliament to legalize drugs, which also echoes MacDonald’s claim that Jews have attempted to undo adaptive restrictions on behavior similar to those that European populations have imposed for centuries.

It is the reference to Cohn-Bendit’s efforts at freer immigration into Europe, however, that really catches my attention, for that is practically the current sine qua non of Jewish activism toward breaking up what many Jews view as nationalistic, particularistic societies. According to Wikipedia, in 1989 Cohn-Bendit became deputy mayor of Frankfurt, “in charge of multicultural affairs. Immigrants made up some 30% of the city at that time.” (Clark notes that “Red Dany’s enthusiasm for overriding national sovereignty is something he shares with his fellow soixante-huitard Bernard Kouchner, the current French foreign minister,” but Clark here also fails to identify Kouchner as half Jewish.)

Now reference this back to the female Coen I wrote about above: she was “in charge of multicultural policy under the former mayor of Rome.”

This is what Sailer quoted from a New York Times article about her activism to de-Italianize Italy:

The newspapers said the Chinese were against Christianity,” she said. “So we held a public event on the Campidoglio about Chinese culture and the New Year celebration, and now we have a Chinese parade each year.

“It was the same with the Sikhs,” she added. “We had a public event after 2001. We also organized tours of the Capitoline Museums for immigrants. Then we asked them to do something. The Poles, for example, had someone play Polish music at the museum.”

“Little things,” she called them. “They can overcome big fears. I saw all these immigrants become a little bit Italian citizens. Culture is crucial to give people here a chance to see that to be foreign is to bring a different ethnic life to the city, that diversity is a positive.”

This, of course, is MacDonald thesis in The Culture of Critique all over again. Chapter seven, for instance, “Jewish Involvement in Shaping U.S. Immigration Policy,” mirrors such Jewish efforts to make America a less Christian, European-derived nation. (These are also useful links to MacDonald’s arguments on Jews and immigration: “Jewish involvement in influencing United States immigration policy, 1881-1965: A historical review.” HTML Version Population and Environment, 19, 295-355, 1998. “Immigration and the Unmentionable Question of Ethnic Interests.” VDARE (www.vdare.com), October 27, 2004. And “Was the 1924 Immigration Cut-off ‘Racist’?” VDARE (www.vdare.com), June 19, 2004.)

Of course, MacDonald is also fully conscious of Jewish efforts in other countries to dilute the “nationalistic, particularistic “ aspects of those societies as well. In a five-page appendix to his chapter on immigration, he writes that “Jewish organizations have pursued similar policies regarding immigration in other Western societies.” In addition to France and Germany, he also documents Jewish activism in the Anglosphere countries of England, Australia and Canada, despite the fact that in the latter two countries there was never “any popular sentiment to end the older European bias of immigration policy.”

MacDonald finishes by writing, “It seems fair to conclude that Jewish organizations have uniformly advocated high levels of immigration of all racial and ethnic groups into Western societies and have also advocated a multicultural model for these societies.”

Getting back to Clark’s essay in The American Conservative , we find that he closes on a depressing note:

Cohn-Bendit’s militant ideology has infected not only the Left, but the Right, too. John McCain’s advocacy of a more liberal immigration policy and his championing of a League of Democracies, with the right to intervene in the affairs of sovereign states the world over, owes more to Daniel Cohn-Bendit than it does to Russell Kirk.

Forty years ago, Red Dany lost a battle. But the sad truth is, he won the war.

See also Part I of this article.

Edmund Connelly is a freelance writer, academic, and expert on the cinema arts. He has previously written for The Occidental Quarterly.

This Sunday’s Week in Review section fronts with a non-groundbreaking quote corral on the Times’ favorite issue of late: Will whites vote for Barack Obama?

Not if he’s too much of a black power fist-pumper, concludes black journalist Marcus Mabry, in what I would describe as a “revelation” fit to print only by the sliding standards of affirmative action. (Really? We couldn’t figure this out?)

Mabry, whose own background suggests he’s a sort of journalistic Obama himself, lazily phones around to the short list of race talkers: John McWhorter and Orlando Patterson (black conservative, black liberal, roughly), Jesse Jackson, Jr., academic Alan Wolfe and author Rick Perlstein. Also on the list is Pat Buchanan, who’s allowed to mention that if blacks are going to support Obama by 90 percent, it’s a little silly to cry racism when whites exhibit a pattern of voting for whites. My neighbors should be grateful that Buchanan, and not David Frum or Bill Kristol, was chosen to speak for the white point of view.

Here is Buchanan, by the way, schooling Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen on this very issue. Do take a moment to watch Cohen squirm.

While not boring us with insights any third-rate blogger could have given us months ago, Mabry wrongly suggests it’s a “prejudice” for whites to think blacks are less patriotic (a little hard not to think, with Rev. Jeremiah Wright damning America and Michelle Obama saying that only now that her husband is successful is she proud of America). Mabry also thinks its prejudicial to link blacks to crime (readers not familiar with the positions of white advocacy should consult Jared Taylor’s “The Color of Crime” report to see that this is not, in fact, counter-factual).

He concludes with that media favorite: Economics, not race, tells the real story.

Mabry’s central point—that whites won’t vote for a too-black candidate—isn’t necessarily wrong. But he stops short about why: Even in this age of near-maximum saturation of political correctness and egalitarian dogma, many whites simply balk at embracing blacks. To white advocates, of course, this is perfectly natural and easily explained: Blacks are a different race with markedly different behavior patterns, intelligence levels and value systems.

The premise that members of different races are fungible is completely mistaken. Only in the deepest reaches of their subconscious do whites still get this. And to my mind, their enthusiasm for Obama is only more evidence of this: It’s the exaggerated gesticulation of a white person forcing themselves to be, or appear, “non-racist.” TOO contributor Hereward Lindsay observes this superficial overfriendliness when a white person will grunt or merely nod to another white, but all of a sudden becomes animated and solicitous when speaking to a black.

In other words, the Obama ascension isn’t a sign to me that races have changed, or even that the human capacity for dealing with racial difference has changed: we have simply moved the furniture around.

There’s another point that the Times and much of the blogosphere has missed in the swoon over this “historic moment”. Obama is a politician. He is not the first black politician. Blacks, in fact, are pretty well suited to politics: they are often gregarious, good speakers, able to command loyalty and work the room. They are typically elected where blacks are concentrated. And indeed, Marion Barry, Wilson Goode, David Dinkins, Cory Booker, Ray Nagin and many others fill a volume like this.

This is not, I repeat, not, a sign that blacks have achieved more than they would have absent intelligence and behavior levels on parity with that of whites. It’s a sign that blacks are loyal to blacks, and have figured out (mostly) how to pull the lever at the local voting precinct (though apparently, requiring them to produce ID is “racist”). Clearly, Marion Barry’s “stewardship” of Washington, D.C. did nothing to improve crime rates or education problems in that heavily-black city — and he personally actually made them worse.

Asians are good counter-example: they are quieter and far less adept at politics, as their anemic numbers in those ranks demonstrate. But they fare better because they’re entrepreneurial, hard-working and math-smart.

So Obama’s securing the Democratic nomination is not, in fact, a sign that blacks have “progressed” to actual equality with whites, only that our media and minders have hustled a black man to the front of the line for their own purposes. President Obama will not erase inherent racial differences. He will not make it so that whites in Cambridge will invite black gang members into their midst. He will not make it so that blacks outscore whites on the LSAT. He will not make the Bronx a friendlier environment for whites (and might even make it more dangerous, with that extra boost of confidence for the swaggering black male).

[adrotate group=”1″]

In fact, as others have noted, it might actually do some damage to the black cause, in so far as affirmative action starts to look still more ridiculous with a black man sitting in the White House (though I am confident that the anti-white network will manage this situation effectively, patiently explaining to credulous whites why they must accept this contradiction). One hopes for some white consciousness-raising, but every time I think to myself that some catastrophic event will “wake whites up,” it never does. Whites, despite their revealed internal instincts, are determined to consciously believe that “race is just a skin color,” and many will use the image of President Obama to sustain that illusion.

Our task as white advocates is to show that the reality on the ground is a far cry from black Camelot.

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist.

Jeremy Waldron, in the latest NYRB, has reviewed what looks to be a valuable book by Anthony Lewis, Freedom for the thought that we hate: A biography of the First Amendment. However, Waldron ends his review with a rather insidious plea concerning the legal restriction of public pronouncements about other races and ethnies. Here’s what he says (p. 44) [emphasis added]:

Lewis’s settled position, I think, is that we do better to swallow hard and tolerate ‘the thought that we hate’ than open ourselves to the dangers of state regulation. I am not convinced. The case is certainly not clear on either side, and Lewis acknowledges that. But it is worth remembering a couple of final points.

First, the issue is not thought that we hate, as though defenders of hate speech laws want to get inside people’s minds. The issue is publication and the harm done to individuals and groups through the disfiguring of our social environment by visible, public, and semi-permanent announcements to the effect that in the opinion of one group in the community, perhaps the majority, members of another group are not worthy of equal citizenship. The old idea of group libel — as opposed to hateful thoughts or hateful conversation — makes this clear, and it is no accident that a number of European countries still use that term.

Well, the term “libel” is a good one. But when applied to the libeling of a private individual, whose reputation has supposedly been unjustly tarnished, the libeler has to have made a false statement. If the statement turns out to be true, it is not libel. “Reputation” is a critical feature of social relations. It can take a long time to establish a good one and an instant to lose it. But when an accusation is valid, the person’s reputation deserves to be affected. The same holds for “group libel” when one calls attention to group differences (e.g., blacks have lower IQ) or mentions the activity of ethnic organizations (e.g., the role of the organized Jewish community in ending immigration policies that favored the European majority in the U.S.).

A court punishes a libeler via due process in which both the falsity and the harmful nature of the statement must be demonstrated to the court’s satisfaction. But truth is a perfectly adequate defense. If the truth is harmful or distasteful to a group, that’s just too bad, just as is the case for an individual. Of course, when people are interacting in good faith, there is no reason for not conveying the truth diplomatically and politely.

One must also consider the fact that to be consistent with principle, any law must apply equally to all parties. Therefore harsh criticisms of ‘whites’, ‘white society’, and ‘Western civilization’ would also have to be examined as potential cases of ‘hate speech’. In that case, would the words of Rev. Wright constitute an offense? Or those of the late literary darling of NY intellectuals, Susan Sontag, who retracted her remark that the white race is the cancer of human history by saying that it slandered cancer patients? To do otherwise would be to violate neutrality, one of the fundamental principles of, dare one say it, ‘Anglo-Saxon’ jurisprudence?

Waldron continues:

Secondly, the issue is not just our learning to tolerate thought that we hate — we the First Amendment lawyers, for example. The harm that expressions of racial hatred do is harm in the first instance to the groups who are denounced or bestialized in pamphlets, billboards, talk radio, and blogs. It is not harm — if I can put it bluntly — to the white liberals who find the racist invective distasteful. Maybe we should admire some lawyer who says he hates what the racist says but defends to the death his right to say it, but this sort of intellectual resilience is not what’s at issue. The question is about the direct targets of the abuse. Can their lives be led, can their children be brought up, can their hopes be maintained and their worst fears dispelled, in a social environment polluted by these materials? Those are the concerns that need to be answered when we defend the use of the First Amendment to strike down laws prohibiting the publication of racial hatred.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Of course people may be offended, deeply hurt even, when members of other branches of humanity look down on them because of behaviors which are indeed widespread within the targeted group. But traditional Mormons (LDS) and Muslims really do sanction polygamy and many of these polygamous families are indeed on welfare. And the organized Jewish community is indeed the main force influencing U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. We should be able to say these things even if those discussed are offended by such remarks.

This is something that Waldron and other racial apologists cannot accept and why his special pleading is insidious. Of course, Muslims who oppose polygamy and Jews who oppose the Israel lobby don’t deserve to be included as guilty of these actions. But they either have a moral imperative to control the perpetrators in their midst or, if that is not possible — as it usually is not — to dissociate themselves from them and their anti-social acts (as many members of many groups have).

Human cognitive systems are evolutionarily preprogrammed to attend to cues for danger and to avoid things that are disliked. Such stereotyping, when applied to other human groups, may not appeal to many people’s moral sense, but it is a form of generalization which is an invaluable and constant cognitive process for all humans — even when the stereotype does not apply to all members of the group.

Stereotypes are rules of thumb. When we are in an in-group, we tend to exaggerate the extent to which members of out-groups have negative traits. These perceptions are useful for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that they make us cautious in dealing with members of the out-group. If I know that young black men are much more likely than whites or Asians to be street criminals, I would be well advised to keep a good distance from a young black man even when a particular black is not a criminal. “Better safe than sorry” is a good mammalian rule. Like it or not, our evolutionary history has been dictated by an eye toward survival, not canonization.

And if the information that young black men are much more likelyto be street criminals is useful in everyday life, then we should be able to state it without incurring the wrath of the thought police — even if it hurts the feelings of blacks.

Typically lost sight of is the fact that hate is a complex emotional/motivational mechanism that evolved as part of a defense system. If it were totally absent, our ancestors wouldn’t have lasted long in the face of the predatory humans of other tribes, ethnies, or races. Why? Because they wouldn’t have been motivated to defend themselves. Remember all those propaganda images from WWII. They promoted hatred toward stereotyped enemies.

Of course today’s politically correct dogma has pathologized “hate”, presumably on the grounds that there is no good reason to have negative stereotypes of certain targets, especially other races and ethnies. To the extent that we can know anything in the social sciences, this is simply untrue.

Often the people complaining most about negative stereotypes are quite prone, themselves, to stereotyping when it suits their interest (e.g., blacks blaming white “racists” and “hate mongers” for their own especially high black crime rate). And it is doubtless true that people do sometimes make mistakes and falsely accuse others (e.g., certain extreme varieties of “Holocaust Denial”). But the solution to that is to educate, inform and explain.

If  a public verbal attack on a group turns out to be malicious accusation where the accuser cannot back up his accusation with facts, then the accuser  might well be held accountable for “group libel,” even if the punishment is nothing more than hostile public opinion. For example, the loss of one’s job as a broadcaster for saying blacks have superior athletic ability because of breeding practices is certainly substantial punishment — especially since the essential notion (that racial differences in talents can arise through differential breeding) is true.  To go beyond that and enlist laws and tribunals of the state to penalize such speech, as a form of “group libel”, would absolutely require following the logic of libel for individuals: prove that the defendant intended to defame a whole group and not just some individuals within it and that what the defendant said was false. This won’t be easy since most people who hold negative views of out-groups probably genuinely believe whatever they may have expressed publicly.

Thus, if “group libel” is so difficult to prove, don’t mess with the First Amendment! The best solution, if ethnic or racial groups cannot seem to resolve their hostile opinions of each other, is that they simply live separately where they can’t get on each other’s nerves. As Steve Sailer says, “It’s what separate countries are for.”

Those tempted to take the anti-hate speech arguments seriously, might want to reflect on the words of Heinrich Himmler, quoted by Lothrop Stoddard who interviewed Heinrich Himmler in Germany back in 1939 and asked “Is any political opposition allowed?”

“What a person thinks is none of our concern,” shot back Himmler quickly.  “But when he acts upon his thoughts, perhaps to the point of starting a conspiracy, then we take action.  We believe in extinguishing a fire while it is still small.  It saves trouble and averts much damage.

Sounds like Waldron’s view of the First Amendment.

Acknowledgement: Thanks to the editor and Travis Woodson for their suggestions on the article.

Anthony Hilton is Associate Professor of Psychology (Ret.) at Concordia University, Montréal, Québec, Canada.